14 comments:

I want to believe
said...

When I was younger I used to think that the saying 'actions speak louder than words' was wrong. As I have got older I have realised in fact how true it is.

In this case, as in so many others, the words of the defendant (or in many instances the downright criminal) and taken by our well-meaning but naive system to be greater than the actions they have witnessed or are aware of.

Well, we have this naivety in so many areas now, and not just crime. So many people are given a free pass or even assistance because they say one thing while doing something quite different. We have forgotten that actions do speak far louder than words, and until we acknowledge that reality is in the action and not the excuses or 'justifications' then we will continue to have this sort of cock-up.

The judiciary generally follow sentencing guidelines set by the government. We elect the government. If we want the sentence to fit the crime we must start voting for a party that believes as we do on this subject.

I don't know what guideline says to let off a junkie with a record as long as your arm. Parliament could mandate, say, a five year sentence for a crime with some small print listing exceptional circumstances where it should not be applied.

Hey presto, 18 months later by a miracle all of the cases tried would have been 'interpreted' as 'exceptional'.

I think there was an example of this recently, within the past year or so.

I can beat this.I was at court with a disqualified driver and after he was found guilty I walked back to my station.As I walked along, the banned criminal drove past me without a care in the world.I radioed ahead and got him stopped and then caught up with him.He wasn't pleased to see me!When this case came to trial he told the magistrate that he just moving his car as he had parked on a yellow line.The magistrate reminded him that he was already banned before the original trial anyway!!!!Jaded

The comment in the paper that O'Neill was 'let off' with a drug rehabilitation requirement is somewhat misleading. A DRR will be a requirement of a community order, which the law says is a more serious penalty than a fine or a discharge. A DRR might also be imposed as a condition of a suspended sentence - we can't tell from the story as printed. We also can't tell what, if any, other requirements were included, such as a curfew, for example.

The DRR will involve at least two drug tests a week and most likely 1-2 days required activity per week for as long as the order lasts - typically 6-12 months. It is a significant restriction on liberty, but chiefly intended as an alternative to the pointless and hugely expensive use of custody for someone who is only a criminal because of their drug habit.

The magistrates will have been advised by the probation service before sentence whether O'Neill was a suitable candidate, and in such cases the magistrates rely heavily on that professional opinion. Nothing is reported about the probation conclusions, nor is there any report about the magistrates' announcement of the reasons for their original sentence. They are obliged in law to give those reasons. Their decision might well seem less odd if all the context were available.

So all in all, the story in the paper is woefully incomplete and drawing meaningful conclusions from such a poor piece of journalism is difficult if not impossible.

All that said, O'Neill is clearly a thieving scrote who should have been banged up properly the first time round.

"an alternative to the pointless and hugely expensive use of custody for someone who is only a criminal because of their drug habit. "

I don't care why someone becomes a thief, and just because defence lawyers claim the above, doesn't make it so. It's not pointless locking up people like this guy. It keeps them from victimising the rest of society. The mistake is usually to let them out so soon.

The point is that if someone becomes a thief just to feed a drug habit - rather than just to make easy money - it makes more sense to try and get them off drugs and thereby stop them thieving. A prison place costs the taxpayer around £40K a year. My own view is that's a price well worth paying to keep genuinely predatory, violent and dangerous offenders off the streets. But it's a bloody expensive way just to stop druggies from shoplifting. Rehab is worth a try, and an honest try, in some cases. It's very difficult to tell which are which until you try. Evidently the mags got it wrong in the morning in this case, but in the afternoon they sentenced pretty much up to the top of their legal limit. Justice probably done in the end.

"Has anyone thought that if magistrates and similar worthies swallow this type of lying so easily that they may also be swallowing it from the prosecution side? They do."

Oh, indeed.

"The magistrate reminded him that he was already banned before the original trial anyway!!!!"

/facepalm

" Nothing is reported about the probation conclusions, nor is there any report about the magistrates' announcement of the reasons for their original sentence. They are obliged in law to give those reasons."

There's rarely space to print that - especially in a local rag.

"...it makes more sense to try and get them off drugs and thereby stop them thieving. "

"...we must start voting for a party that believes as we do on this subject."

Like the Conservatives, that famous party of law and order?

Erm, no, I was thinking more of these policies:

- Make prisons more austere and make criminals serve their full sentences. Offenders will be made to understand that they are being punished and not rewarded with a state-subsidised holiday for their crimes;- Use electronically tagged “chain gangs” to provide labour for projects such as coastal defences;- Introduce automatic prison sentences for all repeat offenders;- Put police back on the streets and remove their current political correctness shackles;- Allow victims of crime full freedom to defend themselves and their property;- Make police concentrate on real criminals and serve the public, not the government’s political aspirations.